It is also the legality of the SLA to begin with. When Psystars engineers install the OS on their hardware, they choose to accept the terms of the SLA. Since they are breaking that contract, they are violating the terms of the said contract.

That being said, it is a civil matter. What someone said about it being illegal to look under the bonnet doesn't understand the concept at hand. This is not a criminal case. Even if the courts find in favour of Apple, it won't create the case law to make it criminal to look at how things work. It will just legitimise EULA/SLA contracts. It does not matter if they bought all the licences that they install, since Apple is making money on it. Apple is a hardware company that happens to make software for their hardware. It is saying you are starting to make your own cell phone because you think the prices of Blackberrys is outrageous. And since you can legally download the firmware off blackberrys website, and you decide to install it onto your own hardware is also in violation of the agreement from RIM's website.

What psystar is doing is sleazy, and I like to know where they are getting the money to finance their legal escapades.

What psystar is doing is sleazy, and I like to know where they are getting the money to finance their legal escapades.

What Apple is doing is sleazy,* and I [sic] like to know where they are getting the money to finance their legal escapades.

Seeing how tight Apple is with Big Content these days, maybe the RIAA and MPAA are secretly behind their lawsuit against Psystar. After all, if Apple wins, that paves the way for CDs or DVDs that come with EULAs stating you can't re-sell them. Say bye-bye to used music or movie stores, probably the fondest dream of both the RIAA and the MPAA. Not that Apple would mind either, since it would just mean more ITMS revenue.

*Seriously, WTF is with Phil Schiller - did they actively try to find someone with even less charisma and likability than Steve Ballmer?